Darren Shan: The Demonata

Anyway for a while I was reading these books until
I saw his portrayal of demons, saying they had no real mind and that they were all monsters, and his grotesque descriptions of demons. I found these offensive and stopped reading them. And as for The Saga of Darren Shan...well, I don't think you want to know.
Does anyone else think this?

The thing with the word Demon is that it means a ton of things and it's kind of moot to get "offended" when descriptions differ from personal kintypes.
Personally, I find it silly to call oneself "demon" and mean "being of chaos" and I avoid using the word altogether, because, no matter what it's most common usage on this forum is, it can still mean any of the following.

a) Anything dark/evil and scary.
b) Fallen angels
c) Horrible, grotesque creatures created by satan.
d) spiritual entities of any kind.

That would be a little like me being offended by the portrayal of Shadows in Babylon 5.

Just because something has the same label or name as you, doesn't mean it's the same thing as you.

Personally, I liked the Demonata series.

And, with the exception of Loren(that green guy who reads your thoughts when you sing) off of that Angel spin-off of Buffy, I've yet to find a... favorable? Depiction of a demon in Western media.

I go for books for the plot line, not whether they depict anything remotely resembling me. And I'm not offended when someone says "hey, demons are bad," because hey, my usage of the term "demon" is not as widespread as the dark, doomy usage.

So no big deal. It's comparable to a therian getting offended by werewolves in movies. ;;

Hahaha... I read the Darran Shan saga series last year. It wasn't half bad, but going to the kid's section to read them was embaressing.

They made a film out of the first three books, just saw it, and I actually enjoyed it despite my first impression of it.